StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Steve are you still shopping for a naval construction system? Because I am working on adapting my naval construction proposal for SDNW2 to this time period.

Actually, from what I've read the Nicaragua Canal would've been easier to dredge and make as it would've utilized pre-existing waterways up to Lake Nicaragua, with the sole exception of the difficulty posed by the Rivas section. There's even a proposal today to build it in light of freighters too big to use Panama.

Well, Wilkens beat me to it....

And we were going to go with a point per thousand tons of ship, spent every quarter until completed, with Navy Focus (and Industry and/or Economy, possibly) limiting or raising available yards (Navy Focus to reflect support for the Navy, Industry for the machinery and equipment needed, Economy to reflect the presence of a merchant marine). If you can refine this, go for it.

As an FYI, I've found someone who intends to play a unified Scandanavia (Norway, Sweden, Denmark). He'll probably be posting tomorrow, went to bed for the night. Which is where I should be going, frankly....

BTW, I'm open for suggestions on which focus score should allow certain techs, like minimal naval and air for aircraft carriers (if only converted ones), or minimal army for tanks or heavier artillery.

Steve wrote:As an FYI, I've found someone who intends to play a unified Scandanavia (Norway, Sweden, Denmark). He'll probably be posting tomorrow, went to bed for the night. Which is where I should be going, frankly....

Hah! Well I'll be keeping an argus eye on how he portrays the place

Steve wrote:BTW, I'm open for suggestions on which focus score should allow certain techs, like minimal naval and air for aircraft carriers (if only converted ones), or minimal army for tanks or heavier artillery.

I think that we should differentiate between small but purpose built carriers such as HMS Hermes, full sized converted cruisers or battlecruisers such as, HMS Furious, and experimental designs such as HMS Argus. Not to mention things like airship and seaplane tenders, do they count as carriers?

EDIT: Let me add anyway that Army Focus 0 and 1 should be stuck in the Boer War Era; Army Focus 2 I think should be running on Great War surplus (e.g. armoured cars and a few crummy tanks only); Army Focus 3 should be able to build anything the French did in the same era (which isn't that bad really); Army Focus 4 anything the British built (and they were number one in this period). However there should be rules regulating how mechanized your forces can be depending on industry and economy, nothing fancy mind you just basic guidelines.

As for the carriers... anyone can make airship or seaplane tenders if they have Naval Focus 1 and Air Focus 2; Naval Focus 3 and Air Focus 2 should be required for any conversions, with perhaps Air Focus 3 (or 4) for purpose built carrier airplanes. Also if you have a carrier that clocks in at over 20 kt you should account for it as a capship (anything smaller is liable to be slow and vulnerable).

This is my idea for naval fleets.

1. Naval focus determines what you can theoretically build:

- Naval focus of 1 necessary to build any dreadnoughts
- Naval focus of 3 necessary to build ships over 30.000 tons
- Naval focus of 4 or higher necessary to build ships over 50.000 tons

2. Industry, economy and Naval focus determines what new construction you can built in practice:

- Combined score of 15 = 300.000 tons yardspace
- Combined score of 14 = 280.000 tons total
scales down to:
combined score of 1 = 20000 tons yardspace

Note: Naval focus of 5 always starts with at least 200.000 tons Baseline, no matter the other ratings. So a player with a 5 in Naval focus would only need a 3 or 4 in the two other categories to get a maximum built order.

Only three quarters of your yardspace may be dedicated to building capital ships.

Thing is I really don't want to keep track of my non-capital ship designs, or at least don't make me keep track of the slipways for them! I mean I could be wrong but isn't slipway space and shipyards most critical for big iron? So we should be spared the trouble of keeping track of the dozens of cruisers (who unlike battlecruisers would all be under 10Kt) and scores of destroyers plus other small fry a navy needs.

I can already only churn out three battleships at a time, even if they only need two years of slipway time that's still three BBs every other year so... That seems like a reasonable pace to me, one which shouldn't preclude me from being able to have other ships beside battleships

Yeah, limiting it to Capital ships only might prevent too much bureaucracy.

However, I would think that a heavily industrialized country (4/5) with a strong Naval Focus (4/5) should be capable of building four or five 50-60kt ships at the same time, so the Yard scale should reflect this.

Thanas wrote:Yeah, limiting it to Capital ships only might prevent too much bureaucracy.

However, I would think that a heavily industrialized country (4/5) with a strong Naval Focus (4/5) should be capable of building four or five 50-60kt ships at the same time, so the Yard scale should reflect this.

In a nine year period between 1905 and 1914 the Royal Navy built 10 battlecruisers and 26 battleships, not counting the Lord Nelson class. That number would go up substantially if you also added what had been laid down prior to the war. Worse yet they still had excess capacity, even in peacetime they could easily have built far more!

With 3 Industry and 3 Naval Focus I'd be lucky to complete 15 capital ships in the same period, that is going fairly all out. This seems reasonable actually for a Industry 3 Naval Focus 3 power, at least if all 3s was supposed to be France.

For the record mind I'm going to be building sane designs rather than going for Insane Super-Battleship Yamato! In short I'll be trying to reflect the design policies of my country when I make my designs. Within those limits however I'll try to wring out every ounce of advantage that I plausible can, much like real world designers and politicians would be doing the same.

Hah. Well, that's a nice move Wilkens, you managed to make me irrelevant to world affairs once again and cost me a major source of income in one swift motion. Cool.

Great. Just fucking great. -_-

Well, if the Panama Canal can't handle ships with an excess beam of 36-40 meters, there is no point in me investing in it. Because German ships have a very wide beam - the Baden class had 30m, the 50.000 ton Bismarck had 36, larger designs might have even more, especially if I am eventually going to built 60kt ships.


So what are the dimensions of your canal, Wilkens? I don't think it will be 254 ft as the original canal was.

I'd suggest a length limit rather than a "capital ship". Maybe something like 400-450 ft?

What exactly is preventing me from building a 50 m wide Panama canal to accomodate German ships?

Beowulf wrote:I'd suggest a length limit rather than a "capital ship". Maybe something like 400-450 ft?

Erm no... some light ships were absurdly long, being very long helps you in terms of handling speed well. I think that the 20kt limit is fairly apt, everything below that is too small for our notice, everything beyond that is probably going to be in the 30kt+ range.

Ryan Thunder wrote:What exactly is preventing me from building a 50 m wide Panama canal to accomodate German ships?

Didn't Wilkens say that changing lock size would be impossible with tech due to the water simply not being there?

You'd probably still get business, Ryan, and as Mexico is a potential foe the Union and Cascadia would likely consider the Panama Canal an important piece of real estate.

Thanas wrote:

Ryan Thunder wrote:What exactly is preventing me from building a 50 m wide Panama canal to accomodate German ships?

Didn't Wilkens say that changing lock size would be impossible with tech due to the water simply not being there?

I'm not sure that I understand how that could be the case, though.

He's saying that there's not enough water in the lakes to fill a few 50 by 200 metre locks?

EDIT: Never mind, I'm just an idiot and didn't think that attempting to make the canal wider would necessarily make it shallower.

Well, who's still on board for my canal?

Depending on how much it will cost, I would still be on board.

I might fund both canals. Essentially bet on both horses so that even in the event of a skirmish etc., my goods still get through to the other side.

^My reasoning as well, but I guess it would depend on how much it will cost.

Cascadia would still support the Panama Canal, especially as it's apparently the first anyway, with Mexico's Nicaragua Canal being something to be built in-game.

BTW Stas Bush if I have questions about Russian inventions such as the giant snake train that rolls on steel ball bearings could you help us out and maybe provide some details?

Didn't Wilkens say that changing lock size would be impossible with tech due to the water simply not being there?

It is possible for Panama to support bigger locks. In 1939 US began construction on a third set of locks that would have been 1200 feet long by 140 feet wide, intended to accommodate a new generation of warships including the Montana Class battleships. This of course was canceled on the US entry into WWII and never resumed. The reason the canal is near capacity today is because of the sheer volume of traffic going through it, not the size of the locks. However, the third locks project has recently been resurrected, building upon the abandoned US excavations. The new locks are to be 1400 x 180 feet (not to mention 60 feet deep, to accommodate newer mega-containerships), and are intended to have a lockwater reclamation system to ease their burden on the water supply.

Oh. In that case, Ryan, Germany would definitely be on board.

There's only going to be one Suez though, and I'm going to strive to keep it that way .

In other news, I've pretty much finished the history of the Sultanate. Let's see what period armies looked like...